The profound impact of fathers and father figures in society outside of trading is quite clear: better behavior from children at home, better grades in school, less alcohol/drug abuse, and an overall reduction in social deviance. (1) It is my psychological theory that trading gurus often exploit this instinctive search for father, mother, sister, and brother figures to make money. This exploit is easier to execute in the trading field compared to other fields due to the antiquated competitive, individualistic and profit-seeking nature of most participants, resulting in money instead of intellectual engagement as the normal means of interaction. There has been a failure of father figures in the trading community, the reckless profit-seeking and self-serving behavior by them in order to maximize their gains has resulted in a higher rate of attrition for the younger generation of traders in the past fifteen years. The father figures have failed to offer the spontaneous, free, open, passionate and cerebral exchanges expected and ethically required of them due to the evolutionary exploit they employ. My proposal is that discretionary traders develop a more evolved way of operating in the post-industrial and information-based economy. Avoid all who see their time as coming with a price, hourly rates for trading consulations, subscriptions, and products. In order for discretionary traders to adapt to the new challenges of algorithm-based institutional trading there must be an increase in open-source, non-profit and cooperative methods of inter-generational engagement to combat this societal plague destroying the trading community from within. (1) http://www.fatherhood.org/father-absence-statistics
Article is about "at risk" children in society that are fatherless. Thus, the article has nothing to do with the typical wall street or person that actively manages their own money as traders or investors considering they have a completely different demographics. Simply, the title of this thread is intentional misleading and inaccurate due to the inclusion of the word "trading". Below I use the words "are different" via the comparison of "at risk" children that grow up to become adults and in reference to their missing fathers versus the typical person involved in the markets. 1) Children education backgrounds are different 2) Parents income levels are different 3) Parents education backgrounds are different 4) At risk children are less likely to reach higher level education 5) Criminal backgrounds are different 6) Ethnicity ratios are different 7) Shopping habits are different 8) Vacationing habits are different 9) Military backgrounds are different but the exceptions here is that the typical at risk child does not grow up to attend top military schools (e.g. West Point, Naval Academy). In contrast, the backgrounds on wall street is more in line with the backgrounds of those that attended top military schools. 10) Social relationships are different 11) Mental health, obesity, sexual activity and pregnancy levels are different 12) Living environments are different. For example, at risk communities (disadvantage neighborhoods have more at risk children) are more likely to have in their communities or nearby a gun store, liquor store, fast food store, discount stores and so on. Therefore, if you research the differences in the demographics, you can see why the typical at risk child is less likely to be involved with the markets when they become adults via the assumption their demographics basically stay the same. This is a tasteless attempt by Q3D that has clearly shown he hasn't been schooled in sociodemographics of those involved in the markets versus "at risk children" or "at risk families" or "at risk communities". Simply, the typical discretionary trader, wall street does not correlate with the typical at risk child that has grown up to become an adult nor those the typical discretionary trader correlate with a father that isn't involved with his children. Sure, there's a low percentage of people out there that came from at risk families that became the exceptions. In contrast, take a look at the statistics (demographics) of people that typically actively play the lottery. They are close to the statistics of at risk families @ http://journalistsresource.org/stud...inance/research-review-lotteries-demographics If Q3D had a career in journalism...he would have been fired by now for false, inaccurate, misleading stories or you'll see his stories on the back page of one of those "tabloid magazines" that the typical at risk family person will read. There are several online information about the demographics of "online traders". One study show that the median trading account size was $116,000 dollars and another study has it around $35,000...I believe the latter is closer to accounts in today's markets. Seriously, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to know that these are not people from "at risk families". Just think about it, do "at risk families" subscribe to eSignal, CQG, TradeStation and other trading services, open up trading accounts and trade from home as discretionary traders ? (Q3D does subscribe to CQG) If in doubt, contact any broker (IB, TradeStation, AMP, Global) and ask them about the demographics of their clients...end of discussion. P.S. There is one particular fact I agreed with...an article in a financial magazine. Those that trade from home or are retail traders...trading is becoming more expensive and brokers are targeting more those that are highly educated or those with higher income levels. P.S.S. In my neighborhood, I go to the mall and saw a booth by a company talking about financial planning and another booth about exotic retirement locations in the world. In contrast, at a different mall near a poor neighborhood...there are booths by the military and education about teen pregnancy. Now guess which mall is situated near those living in "at risk communities" ? Now use Q3D theory...discretionary traders will be tend to hang out at which mall more often than not ?
My son, actually ex stepson when you get divorced, you either step up to the plate and continue to be in my view a good man by continueing relationship with ex's kid or you are a smuck, he didn't ask for a divorce. So in one way he became fatherless and yet I was always within three blocks of him growing up. He'd live with me on/off throughout his live till he moved away. Well, he nearing forty and got engaged, when he was fourteen or sixteen, don't remember I taught him how to trade Bonds and he did very well during the summer but he quit as it was boring. Well couple months ago he asked if I would train him. OMG it is tough to teach your own kid, so I said he is going to have to save his own money $5k and I will match other $5k, I was surprised as he had already. So I sent him books, laptop, chart paper etc... After two months he has read and he has photo memory. Well trading is not like a book, actual getting in/out, nuances never are in books, they are learned by losing, very tough to argue of why something does not work. Kid was smart enough to learn how to program years before. He does not know how lucky he is to be able to do so. So like any teacher, students want to prove me wrong, HAAA, now he is learning that Dad is smarter than he looks. So I am teaching him concepts of risk management BEFORE entry signals as risk management is 95% of any system, he tries so hard to disprove me which is a good thing, cause if the subconscious does not believe, you can't trade your system. I know one day he will trade well, for one to show me he can and other to see me smile. Like most "fathers", I want him to do well in life, I want him to marry well and have kids so one day they can ask him for help in life. Has nothing to do with demographics, had to do with helping. After many years, I have figured out trading can't be taught, it can only be learned. One can show direction, be a mentor, but still much work and few years commitment to help someone learn how to live with losing, and even harder how to live with winning. Most might not understand, which is ok, cause unless you experience it, you are losing. <<<those who can trade - trade, those who can not - teach>>> I have found two vendors or teachers who could trade and teach in 38 years, let's face it, trading is boring after awhile, you are like stuck in a cave, no one understands you or tired of hearing what you talking about, forget talking to girlfriends of what I do. Very hard to deal with the public and to be committed to them for few lousy few thousand bucks, I rather parachute again-afraid of heights.... A good trader is going to make in a day whatever they can pay you. But teaching someone does have benefits of chatting with others of what you do, they can see it not as impossible to have profitable life, but cause of the money and value people put on money, makes it take tougher for them to leave fears of losing it behind. I think most who trade well think they have very secret stuff, but let's face it, there is little new any more. Yes I have couple systems that will die with me, but 99% is in many books, maybe not the nuances, but much of it in Hill's and Edwards/McGee books, we all have favorites that we formed our thoughts on. Of course we all form couple things that are not in books or someone wrote something they read in a forum. I am just happy to be alive and kicking, if I can help a few, so be it. I am wondering what would be a good wedding gift? Would buying a house be too much?
I've had plenty of father figures. Sinclair, Natenberg, Hasbrouck, Cont, Harris... The problem is that once you find a good father figure, you tend to want to GTFO of this discretionary trading game...
Handle, When you decided to help your step son in trading...did you consider him to be someone that correlates to the demographics of "at risk children", "at risk father" or "at risk family". ???
Do you have kids? There were times I was not around in his life, so perhaps I did wrong, but we all have times in our lives we wished we didn't do something, at least I do. It is too easy to say since I am not "blood" I can have excuses, but what doesn't haunt us today can later on. I often think some of the choices he did in his life, were they cause something I didn't do when I wasn't available after he moved. Although he has a job-he has to struggle more at his age and I been a selfish prick as I don't have a care in the world financially, it is a balance of not wanting to hurt him by teaching tough love that in this world you have to work hard to have a pot to piss in. And since he asked, I will at wiling to go balls to the wall on teaching him, but the kid has to do his own work and He knows that I don't give much for free. I live my life based on respect and principles that I see them to be, doesn't have much to be "demo" of anything, many have asked me for help, don't care how they live, I just care if they are going to waste my time and have dreams of grandeur, you have to work hard to overcome all the mental crap we have been taught growing up, charting and your feelings are more often opposite of what you see. Much I have mentored has so little to do about the system and much on how to get away from your past mental anguishes, when you can semi-control yourself, you are by far ahead of the pack. Our country gives way much for free and we see how fucked up the economy is.
There's specific identification for "at risk children". I don't know your step son (but you do). Thus, I don't know if the government would have listed him as someone living in an "at risk" family. Yes, I have kids and they do not qualify as "at risk". They have an expensive private school education, vacations in other countries, trust funds and so on. In contrast, when I was in college, I dated social worker working on her PhD and I did volunteer work in "at risk" communities for 3 consecutive years. I also have relatives living in "at risk" communities. Simply, I know if someone would fall under the government in the U.S., Canada and France as "at risk" category. There were no "discretionary trading" in their life, they didn't have parents doing any discretionary trading. Those (teenagers and young adults) that had jobs had the bare minimum benefits like vacations and social security. Only a tiny percentage made it out of the neighborhoods and went on to higher education. Yet, that was then and is a little different now in today's economy. The middle class is getting closer to the poor or there's more of a blur between them now. Another way to look at it...there's more of a distinction now between the middle class and the rich than ever before. Regardless, at risk individuals are not in the position to be exploited by a guru trader as Q3D has implied. They do not have the funds to become traders and if they did have the funds...they surely did something else with the money. In contrast, as I implied, if they had money...they played the lottery and really didn't care about the markets. Further, take a close look at wall street itself or other financial centers in London, Hong Kong, Singapore or Chicago. Those involved are typically not living in "at risk families" and typically not raised in an "at risk family". In reality, the market itself as a whole preys upon those that are rich...those that have the money to speculate. Its been that way from the beginning and will always be that way until there's no longer a market. Yet, if you're poor (at risk), you'll most likely try to get rich a different way (e.g. criminal, lottery or higher education)...not trading.
It's a psychological theory, the article I linked to doesn't have anything to do with my intent or purpose w/the thread, you are guilty of misconduct and insubordination wrbtrader. I'm extrapolating from children in at-risk communities having psychological issues with absent fathers to traders in their 20s-40s being exploited by older trading gurus using the same subconscious psychological vulnerabilities in different settings.